Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 424 posts

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#221

Post by worik »

Retric wrote: post #192
seer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that in a lot of places in the west bicycles are forced to mix with motor vehicles, and away from pedestrians. This always seemed like a weird trade off to me - “you are inconveniencing some pedestrians, so go in this other lane where you can die” I grew up in Eastern Europe, where technically the laws are similar, but no policeman is going to stop you for riding on the sidewalk. So you natural…

Mixing pedestrians with bikes runs into its own set of issues, at high enough density bikes simply can’t be ridden. Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale. Bikes on sidewalks are also far less safe in deaths per mile than it seems.

> Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale

Get private cars out of cities. That works

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#222

Post by bagels »

mmooss wrote: post #143
tagh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, the system is very badly designed. Cars and bikes don't mix without carefully designed roads that make the lazy/default decision and the safe decision the same thing, because eventual complacency is human nature. > You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. In that metaphor cars are a force of nature. I've also heard "the laws of physics t…

> When I choose to drive, I have the means to kill someone else and I'm damn well responsible for that risk. I agree, and part of my GP point was, I think almost every driver agrees, even in different words: Drivers are very adverse to hitting humans, whether walking or biking.

Most are. A few are not averse.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#223

Post by pests »

onionisafruit wrote: post #136
rightbyte wrote: post #118

In stories like this... I assume the patient was billed due to some automatic bureaucracy?

Their lawyer probably would have insisted they bill it like any other run. Not doing so could be construed as admitting fault.

> construed as admitting fault

They gonna argue he wasn't hit. Come on

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#224

Post by yieldcrv »

D-Coder wrote: post #14

"An Oregon cyclist who was struck by an ambulance that made a right turn into him — fracturing his nose and leaving him with scrapes and other injuries across his body — has filed a $997,000 lawsuit against the ambulance provider after it scooped him up, drove him to the hospital and then billed him for the service, according to the suit." $47K for current medical costs, $50K for expected future medical costs, and $9…

It was probably a $1,000,000 insurance policy that the ambulance/provider had

You just start there no matter what

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#226

Post by sottol »

ggreer wrote: post #190
sottol wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can 1:1 compare those stats. Most people just wouldn't have the time to travel as far by bike as they do by car, even if they wanted to. They'd take some other form of transit for long drives. Car drivers do 13500 miles/year on average, even at a very sporty 20mi/h per (average!) a cyclist would have to ride full 29 days/year non-stop to match that. Thus, a better measure would be accidents/hour of…

That logic also applies to flying versus driving, but few make the same objection when someone points out that flying is safer than driving. And at the margins, cycling does substitute for driving, just as driving sometimes substitutes for flying. The different modes of transportation do have various advantages and disadvantages, but the fact remains that cycling is significantly more dangerous.

Yes, on the margins cycling is more dangerous in the USA. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the physical exercise would reduce mortality enough to still be a net positive on the margins - biking to the bakery vs driving - but haven't verified that.

Interesting tidbit from the report is that almost 50% of fatalities are in towns 100k. I would have guessed metro areas are more dangerous.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#227

Post by Retric »

worik wrote: post #221
Retric wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mixing pedestrians with bikes runs into its own set of issues, at high enough density bikes simply can’t be ridden. Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale. Bikes on sidewalks are also far less safe in deaths per mile than it seems.

> Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale Get private cars out of cities. That works

Cities are more than just ultra dense urban cores and megacities. Cars work well for stand alone cities under ~500,000 people.

That said, America relies heavily on public transportation even in smaller communities we just call them school buses and ignore em. So cars aren’t the cheapest option even at these scales, but they can be quite convenient when there’s minimal traffic issues.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#228

Post by bluecalm »

armada651 wrote: post #185
mmooss wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without i…

> Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed. Which is why infrastructure in cities should not mix cyclists and cars. That is the real reason why cycling is safer in the Netherlands with separate bicycle paths and bicycle traffic signal.

I don't agree. Some of the safest places to cycle have about 0 infrastructure. What matters are driving culture, speed limits (and enforcement of those) as well as lesser numbers of "modern" cars on roads (cause those have bad visibility, a lot of distractions and too much insulation causing people to underestimate their speed.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#229

Post by fetzu »

fy20 wrote: post #169

As a European, the fact that you have to pay for emergency transport in an ambulance is enough internet for today.

Because you think you don’t pay for your healthcare?

As an European, I have probably paid upwards of 150k for healthcare and probably got about 10k worth of it (at what might consider unreasonable prices, mind you). Even in countries with universal healthcare, it’s not free. There is always someone footing the bill.

EDIT: a word

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#230

Post by scott_w »

mmooss wrote: post #47
nritchie wrote: post #13

As a bicyclist, I'm constantly told how dangerous bicycles are. Usually, I get a blank look when I explain, bicycles are very safe, it is the cars that are the dangerous part of the equation. Now I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list of dangers.

You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without i…

> Cyclists make mistakes

Stats in the UK show that the majority of car/bicycle collisions are due to driver error, not cyclist error. Given the USA standard of driving is much lower, and policing is much less consistent, I’d put good money on that being higher in the USA.

> Cars and bikes don't mix

Yes but you’re looking at the wrong category of people making the mistake.

Post reply on HN